The Case for Donald Trump

It’s a Liberty tradition: before a presidential election we invite our authors to make the best case they can for the Democratic candidate, the Libertarian candidate, the Republican candidate, and no candidate at all. In some instances, the best case isn’t one that the authors themselves find the most convincing. C’est la guerre.

* * *

Donald Trump is not a libertarian. He’s not even a conservative. He’s an old-fashioned National Democrat, reminiscent in his politics of the Kennedy generation.

This is something that makes me swallow twice before recommending a vote for him. If you don’t believe in giving your support to anyone who doesn’t share all your views on the major issues, you probably won’t even vote for Gary Johnson. I’m sure you won’t see a Disney movie (think of what the Disney corporation stands for!) or use a Microsoft product. But if you see voting as one of the choices we typically make in life, a choice between the worst and something not the worst, you won’t vote for the worst. You won’t vote for Hillary Clinton. You will try to stop her.

The Clinton-Obama-Clinton dynasty has established a giant political machine, the most potent in American history. It is filled with people who salivate for power and are ruthless in using it.

If you see voting as one of the choices we typically make in life, a choice between the worst and something not the worst, you won’t vote for the worst.

These are the people who never saw a tax they didn’t like — or a crony capitalist, or a race hustler, or a PC censor, or a global-warming scammer, or a country-club Republican, or an international meddler, or a regulator of any shape or size.

These are the people who have fanatically withheld all information they could about the workings of the government, whether it related to the miserable tenure of Ms. Clinton as Secretary of State or to the dark deeds of the IRS, the FBI, the military brass, and the regulatory agencies.

These are the people whose “dream” is an America with “open borders” — as Mrs. Clinton said, and then claimed she was thinking about border-free electronic communication, not future voters for her friends.

These are the people who fight to the death against the idea that voters should have to identify themselves — I wonder why? Is it because the voters in question plan to vote Libertarian? I doubt it.

These are the people who claim that illegal immigrants receive no welfare — except, of course, for schools, roads, legal protection, affirmative action, college scholarships, and other benefits that the so-called liberals continually try to increase, to generate votes for their party. (Note to Libertarian Party members: this is exactly what all libertarian savants from Murray Rothbard to Milton Friedman meant when they said that you cannot have open immigration in a welfare state. And by supporting open immigration, you are signing your own death warrant as a party.)

These are the people who have used “free trade” to enrich their international cronies, caring nothing about an American working class that is fast becoming a chronic welfare class.

These are the people who view the deficit as an enormous slush fund, useful for rewarding their party’s friends, relying on a crony banking system to keep the scheme going by repressing interest rates.

These are the people who have used “free trade” to enrich their international cronies, caring nothing about an American working class that has lost jobs and income at a rate unmatched since the 1930s — a working class that is fast becoming a chronic welfare class.

These are the people who are prepared to stock the Supreme Court with partisan judges who will permanently institutionalize every power-grab of the political class.

These are the people who have a foreign policy as bellicose as that of the Bush Republicans, though with somewhat different targets, people who succeeded in destabilizing large areas of the Middle East and remain willing to destabilize any place to which their Messiah complex attracts them.

These are the people who take millions in Saudi money and kowtow to Iran, in the shadow of gay men swinging from Iranian gallows and women ground beneath the heel of the Clintons’ Arab donors.

These are the people who have succeeded in destabilizing large areas of the Middle East and remain willing to destabilize any place to which their Messiah complex attracts them.

These are the people who lie to you, who hold you in contempt, and who are now on the point of consolidating themselves in power.

Are you going to vote against them?

A vote for the Libertarian Party is not a vote. It is an expression of opinion, and as such, honorable. But a voteis a political, not an expressive, device. A vote is supposed to do something, or keep something from being done. The Clinton regime laughs at expressive votes. It hopes you will go ahead and express yourself by voting for anyone except a person who would check the Clintons’ power.

Comments

Steve Murphy

Excellent assessment, precisely capturing the essence of Trump: the only hope of stopping America's ever-leftward decline. In my adult lifetime (I am 67), liberal ideology has spread like a virus; it has prevailed despite its chronic policy failures; it now flourishes under Democrat supervision and the tacit, often complicit, assistance of establishment Republicans. None of the ideas of Libertarians or, for that matter, even conservative Republicans have found their way into a single policy of lasting consequence.

I believe that America needs fundamental change -- based almost exclusively on libertarian and conservative principles. But to the American electorate, a libertarian or a conservative is little more than a quaint tire-kicker, waving his copy of a tattered and passé US constitution. Election by election, as libertarians honorably express their opinion, political reality moves forward, ruthlessly in favor of those who are vehemently opposed to everything libertarians stand for.

Ironically, Trump, who wants to "shake up" Washington and "drain the swamp," might be the one who will give a libertarian idea or two a try. What else has worked? He might even appoint a libertarian or two to his cabinet. After all, he rejects the policies of Democrats and establishment Republicans (the regulatory morass, the burgeoning welfare state, mass immigration, common core, etc.), and his official platform is, for the most part, solidly conservative. What do we have to lose?

This is an argument only useful in "swing states".
Otherwise, why not do the expressive vote for Johnson and move liberty forward in all the clear "Red" and "Blue" states. 5% popular vote would go a long way to giving a pro-freedom/individual party a bigger voice, or at least some voice.

When I lived in Maryland, I voted Libertarian for president, because it was virtually certain that the Democrat would win the state's electoral votes, and my vote would likely not affect the outcome. Here in North Carolina, however, my vote can affect the outcome. My goal in this election was to do my small part to prevent the Wicked Witch from winning the state's electoral votes. So I voted for the Buffoon. We'll see how it turns out.